Tolerance ???

Seeing as this seems to be coming up again and again through a variety of different posts, how about we discuss it as a topic of its own.Today throughout the media the word tolerance frequently appears. Over here in Australia, the topic has been thrown around regarding Islamic integration into our multicultural society. There have been Current Affairs programs running exposés where young Muslims state that the will never integrate, without being given the opportunity to elaborate. Interestingly many Christians weigh into the discussion by expressing their disgust at the Muslims considering their religious beliefs to be justification for not blending into Australian culture. The heart of the issue is a false idea of "good-guys" and "bad-guys". The idea that Mohummedans are such a threat to our "Christian society" is tragically naive. Give it time, and we "Fundamentalist Christians" will be the enemies to our "Democratic society". This is already happening. Just talk to any open air evangelist worth anything and they'll tell you tales of "Christians" and Athiests alike who a deeply offended at the "intolerent insistance" on them being sinners in need of a saviour.Tolerance is a dangerous toxin that, if we allow to be tolerated (no pun intended) will slowly errode at the truth within us. As a rule, I tolerate all people, but I refuse to tolerate deception. We are to judge people be their fruit (Matt 7:16), and ideas by their spirit (1 John 4:1). Discernment is not an option it is a command. True there are many questions that are left unanswered in scripture, and in these areas unproven dogmatism should not be tolerated. True, no one knows everything about everthing (apart from those who were only wrong that time they thought they were, but weren't:-P), however there are some "truths" that can be known, as there are some "errors".To quote Art Katz, "You really have to be zealous for truth, people."

I tolerate all people, but I refuse to tolerate deception. ... Discernment is not an option it is a command.Let's say I am in a store and I disern that one product is a fake,and the other is genuine. I do not tolerat the fake (I don't purchase it) but I buy the genuine. Is that not how we apply Scripture?Should I inform the store owner or the manufacturer of my "discernment"? Should I tell everyone I know about the fake. Or should I simply display and use the genuine? We can get quite burnt-out in our "discernment" attempts. We also need to discern how to discern our discernment. Spending more time with the geunuine than the fake may get us further in revealing to the world the fakeness of the fake. After all what good is it to tell someone about a fake product but not reveal the value of genuine product (which is very costly) Diane

Hi CJaKfOrEsT...!Thanks for pointing this out. Its always important to remember that "tolerance" is not the same as "acceptance." We can "tolerate" the views of this world, while still not accepting those beliefs -- even while we preach repentance. Yet we must also be careful to truly love the people of this world, and view them as "sheep having no shepherd." We are to have true love and compassion for the homosexual, the adulterer, the liar, the athiest, and the abortionist -- as well as to the murderer, the rapist and the thief. But we must also extend that same compassion to the self righteous, the high-minded, the ever-suspicious, the spiritual know-it-all, the hypocrite and the judgmental believer. What seems to be more difficult is that we must extend this love and compassion to those that do not agree with us. For some reason, pride often gets the best of us, and we don't like our views and beliefs to be dismissed or questioned by those with whom we share. But as representatives of Christ, we must approach such things with humility. And as representations of flawed humanity, we must realize that we are not perfect, and that we are prone to making mistakes -- even if we are convinced that our beliefs are true. There are alot of things that I used to be convinced of. Looking back, I often wonder, "What was I thinking?!?" :-)

Notice that one can't tolerate someone unless he disagrees with him. We don't "tolerate" people who share our views. They're on our side. There's nothing to put up with. Tolerance is reserved for those we think are wrong. This essential element of tolerance--disagreement--has been completely lost in the modern distortion of the concept. Nowadays, if you think someone is wrong, you're called intolerant. This presents us with a very curious problem. Judging someone wrong makes one intolerant, yet one must first think another is wrong in order to be tolerant. It's a "Catch-22." According to this approach, true tolerance is impossible.-Greg Koukl

I work at a school and there is a sign that says, "Intolerance will not be tolerated!" :lol: Doesn't that bring confusion?

roadsign wrote:Let's say I am in a store and I disern that one product is a fake,and the other is genuine. I do not tolerat the fake (I don't purchase it) but I buy the genuine. Is that not how we apply Scripture?While I agree, and as a result, I don't waste my time trying to convince a Muslim on the finer points of the Trinity. If we alter the story, and we have a friend purchase the "fake" breakfast cereal and he is poisoned by the arsenic that made it a fake, it would be our moral responsability to warn others of the impending danger, in terms that promote action. This wouldn't be an attempt to smear the store or the store owners, but to alert to a trajic mistake in manufacturing.After all what good is it to tell someone about a fake product but not reveal the value of genuine product (which is very costly) This is a very true statement, however many Christians these days have been climatised to an environment that accepts everything and asks nothing. There are teachings getting around that are leading to people falling away from Christ (if they ever fell into Him at all). Have you ever noticed that backslidders rarely fall into atheism, they tend to head into ocultic beliefs, actively resist the spread of the gospel and are the hardest to win for Christ.Believers need to be made aware of deception in the same way that sinners need to be made aware of their sin. All this reminds be of something that I read in Oswlad Chambers biography "Abandoned to God":Major John Skidmore, the League’s secretary in Manchester, shared a “no-holds-barred” relationship with Oswald Chambers. There was nothing they couldn’t tell each other—a rare gift for two men in the sometimes repressive atmosphere of the day and the holiness movement itself.When Skidmore found himself in a mental cul de sac, emptied by his role of continually giving the truth out to others, he shared his dilemma with Chambers.“What do you read?” Oswald asked.“Only the Bible and books directly associated with it,” Skidmore told him.“That’s the trouble,” Chambers replied. “You have allowed part of your brain to stagnate for want of use.”Within a few minutes, Oswald had scribbled out a list of more than fifty books—philosophical, psychological, and theological, dealing with every phase of current thought. In a follow-up letter to Skidmore, Oswald said: “My strong advice to you is to soak, soak, soak in philosophy and psychology, until you know more of these subjects than ever you need consciously to think. It is ignorance of these subjects on the part of ministers and workers that has brought our evangelical theology to such a sorry plight.“When people refer to a man as ‘a man of one book,’ meaning the Bible, he is generally found to be a man of multitudinous books, which simply isolates the one Book to its proper grandeur. The man who reads only the Bible does not, as a rule, know it or human life.”

Believers need to be made aware of deception in the same way that sinners need to be made aware of their sin.Unfortunately many professing Christians have been "made aware of deception", but they haven't done the thinking themselves. They just borrow someone else's predigested beliefs, including prejudices and misinformation. I really like your quote re O Chambers. From that I gather that we Christians need to read to learn to THINK. Anyone here read "Scott Peck"?.. or Bertrand Russel, "Why I am not a Christian"? THey give us something to think about. "Intolerance will not be tolerated!"Rather poor choice of words, is it not? It seems like fuzzy definitions are being tolerated in this school. Diane

I hate the word tolerance 1. The New American Standard Bible - 2 Verses: Display Verses 2. The Good News Translation - 1 Verse: Display Verse 3. The Message - 1 Verse: Display VerseBible versions that use the word!! Looked up on crosswalk.

I hate the word tolerance'Tolerance' is a wonderful word, if it is used in the traditional sense of the word and not the distorted meaning that is now popular. The modern meaning of the word is something like, "all views have merit therefore no view should be considered better than another." On the surface that seems reasonable but when we look at it closely it falls apart. As an example, I am called intolerant if I say that the Jews are wrong in their denial that Jesus Christ is the Messiah. The problem is that either the Jews are right and He's not the Messiah or Christians are right and He is. One of the two positions must be false, therefore one view must be better than the other. So you see, we end up with hopeless contradiction if we accept the modern meaning of tolerance.The answer is to reject that meaning and accept the traditional meaning which says that all people have merit and none should be considered better than another, but not all views have equal merit. The Bible tells us that people have merit because all are made in the image of God, therefore all deserve respect. The Bible also tells us to "prove all things and hold fast that which is good."In Christ,Ron

Is there a possiblity that the words tolerance and patience get used intechangeably?We are called to be patient. Are we called to be tolerant? Diane

Hi ...!While I agree, and as a result, I don't waste my time trying to convince a Muslim on the finer points of the Trinity. That is pretty funny -- and very true! I know a youth pastor at a large church in Corpus Christi. He brought his youth group "ministry team" to Kingsville in order for them to perform at a local church. They had rock musicians, singers, and even a "moshe pit" where they encouraged "slam-dancing" and "rave." The interesting thing was that this youth pastor admitted that most of the youth participating in the "ministry team" was not even saved! But to this youth minister, this was a good thing. He said, "They are going to already be evangelists by the time they get saved!" "The key to 'reaching' young people," he said, "is tolerance." In the meanwhile, he had to closely guard them from cursing, fighting and even having sex while spending the night in towns where they are touring. As you might expect, most of those youth did not "continue" in the faith. But I attended one of his services (because I was asked to drive a bus by our Pastor). The youth pastor preached a message (needless to say, a very short message) on tithing. That night, I could not sleep because I was deeply troubled. As a result, I wrote the youth pastor a letter. In it, I told him that these kids did not need to hear a message on "tithing." I told him that they need to a message that was real that might wake them up to the urgency of their spiritual condition! To neglect doing so sent the message that knowing Christ is not truly important -- let alone the reason for living. I went on to tell him that, yes, Christ did tolerate the prostitutes and tax collectors. He certainly ate and drank with them. However, he did not accept their sin. He let them know that they were in danger of dying the second death if they did not come to Him. Like was stated earlier, tolerance is not the same as acceptance. I like what Annie wrote -- tolerance is very similar to enduring. Christ endured the spiritual conditions, attitudes and sinfulness of those with whom he ate and drank. Why? He didn't do this to overlook their sin -- but to show himself to them in spite of their sin. I have had blatant and unashamed homosexuals call me at night -- requesting prayer. They know that I consider homosexuality a disgusting sin. But they also know that I still have authentic compassion for them. I eat with them in the cafeteria. I walk with them on the sidewalk. I even sit next to them in class. And they definitely know that I am a Christian. I have always stressed that they are loved by the Lord -- despite their sinful lifestyle. But I warn them that, if they do not come to Christ and repent, they will perish -- just like every other adulterer or individual trapped in sin. We can love unconditionally while still hating sin. That is what "tolerance" is to me. We can tolerate people -- while hating what they do. Yet the far-left in this nation is attempting to equate "tolerance" with "acceptance." There is a huge difference. But since the word is beginning to change its meaning, I try to stay away from it as much as possible! :-)

InTheLight wrote:'Tolerance' is a wonderful word, if it is used in the traditional sense of the word and not the distorted meaning that is now popular. I think that this is another point in itself. The progressive alteration of the English language, that is erroding the defitions of biblical words. I remember hearing J Edwin Orr speak about the "translation error" that led to metanoia being translated as penatenzio (I've probably spelled that wrong :-)). This lead to the meaning being known as "feelin sorry" instead of "changing one's opinion to the point of action resulting".There are several words like this, and perhaps the present "Zeitgheist" could be labeled with the modern understanding of this word.